Joseph F. Saporito Jr.
How Judge Saporito rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Saporito
Joseph Francis Saporito, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Saporito received a commission on August 13, 2024.
Judge Saporito's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Saporito, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Put any request for an order or extension of time on the docket.
“any application for an order or extension of time must be filed on the docket.”
Discovery
Request a telephonic discovery conference by docket letter before filing a discovery motion.
“counsel shall place a letter on the docket requesting a telephonic discovery conference”
Trial
Submit proposed jury instructions at least one month before trial.
“I require counsel to submit proposed jury instructions at least one month prior to trial”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Saporito decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one immigration-detention habeas case, Saporito held that Section 1226(a), rather than Section 1225(b)(2)'s mandatory-detention provision, governed a noncitizen arrested after living in the country's interior. He required an individualized bond hearing or release and placed a clear-and-convincing burden on the government.
“Here, § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to the detention of Kumar. We find that Kumar is no longer seeking admission into the United States—at the time of his arrest and detention, he was not actively attempting to come into the United States at a border or port of entry.”
In Murphy v. Woodloch Pines, Saporito denied the resort defendants’ summary-judgment motion in an injury case, leaving their no-duty, assumption-of-risk, and exculpatory-clause defenses for trial.
“Therefore, we will deny the Woodloch defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
In a prisoner medical-care suit, he dismissed most claims for failure to state a claim but preserved the plaintiff's chance to fix pleading defects rather than closing the case outright, while independently striking non-compliant expert certificates.
“Guggenheimer's complaint will be dismissed, but he will be permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days”
Procedural preferences
In Hyde v. Reed, Saporito dismissed a pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed amendment because the record did not show that amendment would be futile or inequitable.
“we will grant the motion to dismiss, and dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims against the named defendants for failure to state a claim... the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.”
In Cordon-Linarez v. Garland, Saporito adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation in full after addressing the petitioner’s objections in a supplemental opinion, then dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction.
“the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court, as supplemented by this memorandum opinion.”
Cautions
In Blackstone's civil-rights suit, Saporito found amendment futile because the plaintiff had filed a similar action against some of the same defendants that had already been dismissed with prejudice, and he closed this case.
“the Court finds that amendment would be futile... the Court will dismiss the case and direct the Clerk to mark this action as closed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
As magistrate judge, screening a pro se Title VII complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before service on the defendants, the judge recommended dismissal but with leave to amend rather than a final dismissal: "we recommend that the action be dismissed with leave to amend." This is a pre-service screening recommendation, not a ruling on a party motion, so it is excluded from the motion-outcome statistics below.
“the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Doc. 27), is DENIED.”
“Therefore, we will deny the Woodloch defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“it is recommended that the petition (Doc. 1) be summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.”
“Kaplan University's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (Doc. 8) be GRANTED.”
“we will grant the motion to dismiss, and dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims against the named defendants for failure to state a claim... the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.”
“the petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED as MOOT.”
“the Report of Judge Saporito is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY... the Commissioner's decision is VACATED... REMANDED... for a new hearing before a different constitutionally-appointed ALJ.”
“Judge Saporito's report is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be AFFIRMED and that Webster’s requests for the award of benefits or remand for a new administrative hearing be DENIED.”
“The report (Doc. 50) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED. ... Defendant's motion (Doc. 40) for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 200.5 days (N = 6).
The 12-case sample spans Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, employment disputes, a removed debt-collection case, and a commercial contract action. It contains 14 motion rulings split roughly evenly between Saporito's magistrate service and his district-judge tenure.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 8 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 8 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 23 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 20 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Saporito: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 660 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 901 | 10.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 21 | 39.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,590 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,535 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,370 | 11 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,550 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,420 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,410 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,611 | 11 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Saporito with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Saporito, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Saporito's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace